在和老人们的攀谈中，我了解到他们每年都结伴到巴马长寿之乡居住一段时间，两三个月到半年不等。他们说全国各地都有不少的老人和他们一样到巴马做“候鸟”，甚至还有来自日本、韩国的老人慕名而来的，也像他们一样是“健康的候鸟”。因为那里的生活成本比较低，领着退休金从大城市来的候鸟们，都没有经济上的压力。
从此我比较关注巴马的消息，虽然我没有到过巴马。但是在巴马的论坛、百度的“巴马”贴吧，时常和巴马人或者那里的旅游者交流。这一切源于我对于健康和长寿的关注吧。
在论坛中，发现有人问到关于“巴马的长寿老人吃什么食用油”的问题，我把他们的讨论回答截图放在下面：
从上图的讨论，发现巴马本地人，大多数回答集中在“猪油”“火麻油”，猪油占多数。我相信动物油的好处大于植物油，因为这里看到的是健康食用油的事实！而不是冒名“科普砖家”的凭空建议。
我继续在网上搜索看食用油的相关文章，除了对“地沟油”的批判之外，就是早些时候的专家们推荐使用“植物油”的呼声，也看到“动物油背黑锅多年，植物油才是心脏病元凶”的文章（链接：搜狐网http://mt.sohu.com/20150324/n410236375.shtml），开始我是不信的，因为大量充斥于微信公众平台的文章，也有类似的说法，而我对于微信的“不信”是根深蒂固的，微信上抄来抄去的文章之泛滥，已经让我屏蔽几乎所有的订阅号。
当某些健康网站上所谓“医生教你怎样选择食用油”、 “植物油VS动物油，被夸大的好处和坏处”， 我已经提不起阅读的兴趣。
利用我对于英文的熟悉，我在谷歌上搜索了相关Animal Fat、Animal Oil、vegetable oil 等等英文文章。
结果还是证实了，国际上也在为动物油平反，不管你信不信，我信了。这里粘贴最主要的一篇英文文章，暂时不做翻译，题目大概是“惊奇！重新研究发现，动物油打败了植物油”。对英文感兴趣的童鞋，可以自己琢磨。
Surprise, Surprise! Animal Fat Beats Vegetable Oil In ‘Rediscovered’ Study（惊奇！重新研究发现，动物油打败了植物油）
Posted by Tom Naughton in Good Science
Well, I am shocked: researchers recently discovered some lost data from a 40-year-old study on heart disease, analyzed the lost data, and discovered … wait for it … the animal fats we’ve been consuming for hundreds of thousands of years appear to be better for our health than the chemically extracted vegetable oils we’ve only been consuming for the past 100 years.
I know, I know … you can’t believe it either, can you? The new analysis has (fortunately) been making a bit of a splash in the media. Here are some quotes from an article published in the online edition of Forbes:
In an exceedingly strange turn of events, data from a clinical trial dating from the 1960s, long thought to be lost, has now been resurrected and may contribute important new information to the very contemporary controversy over recommendations about dietary fat composition.
The American Heart Association has long urged people to increase their consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), including omega 6 PUFAs, and reduce their consumption of saturated fatty acids. The recommendations are based on the simple observation that PUFAs lower total and LDL cholesterol while SFAs have the opposite effect. However, the cardiovascular effects of substituting PUFAs for SFAs have never been tested in randomized, well-controlled clinical trials, and a growing proportion of experts now suspect that simple changes in total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol may not tell the whole story.
Let’s just stop and re-read part of that paragraph.
However, the cardiovascular effects of substituting PUFAs for SFAs have never been tested in randomized, well-controlled clinical trials …
We’ve never had anything remotely resembling actual proof that substituting vegetable oils for animal fats prevents heart disease. But the lack of proof didn’t stop an entire industry from building up around the belief that vegetable oils are better for our health – just visit your grocery store and look at all the tubs of Smart Balance and other butter substitutes touting the fact that they contain less saturated fat.
The lack of proof didn’t stop The Guy From CSPI from harassing the restaurant industry into substituting vegetable oils for the lard and tallow they once used to fry foods. (And a chicken-fried steak hasn’t tasted the same since.) The lack of proof didn’t stop schools, hospitals, company cafeterias, and just about every other institution that serves meals from dumping butter in favor of margarine.
The lack of proof doesn’t stop the average doctor, dietitian or nutritionist from believing that hundreds or even thousand of studies have shown that animal fats cause heart disease. Let’s read on:
One trial that actually tested the hypothesis was the Sydney Diet Heart Study, which ran from 1966 through 1973. In the trial, 458 men with coronary disease were randomized to a diet rich in linoleic acid (the predominant omega 6 PUFA in most diets) or their usual diet. Although total cholesterol was reduced by 13% in the treatment group during the study, all-cause mortality was higher in the linoleic acid group than in the control group. However, in the original publications, and consistent with the practice at the time, deaths from cardiovascular (CVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths were not published.
Now, in a new paper published in BMJ, Christopher Ramsden and colleagues report that they were able to recover and analyze data from the original magnetic tape of the Sydney Diet Heart Study. The new mortality findings are consistent:
- All cause: 17.6% in the linoleic group versus 11.8% in the control group, HR 1.62, CI 1.00-2.64)
- CV disease: 17.2% versus 11%, HR 1.70, CI 1.03-2.80
- CHD: 16.3% versus 10.1%, HR 1.74, CI 1.04-2.92
Once again, let’s re-read part of the text above and let it sink in for a moment:
Although total cholesterol was reduced by 13% in the treatment group during the study, all-cause mortality was higher in the linoleic acid group than in the control group.
One of the goals of the original study was to lower cholesterol levels by swapping vegetable oils for animal fats. That goal was achieved – yahoo! Open the champagne.
And then the study subjects had to go and ruin the party by dying prematurely at a higher rate — from both heart disease and all causes combined — despite their lower cholesterol levels. The operation was a success, but unfortunately the patient died.
I’ve read the full text of the study, which includes this paragraph in the discussion section:
The traditional diet-heart hypothesis predicts that these favorable, diet-induced changes in blood lipids will diminish deposition of cholesterol in the arterial wall, slow progression of atherosclerosis, reduce clinical cardiovascular risk, and eventually improve survival. As expected, increasing n-6 from safflower oil significantly reduced total cholesterol. However, these reductions were not associated with mortality outcomes. Moreover, the increased risk of death in the intervention group presented fairly rapidly and persisted throughout the trial. These observations, combined with recent progress in the field of fatty acid metabolism, point to a mechanism of cardiovascular disease pathogenesis independent of our traditional understanding of cholesterol lowering.
That’s the polite, academic way of putting it. Allow me to interpret for the non-academic masses:
联系客服
